International Journal of Instruction January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.

1
e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ● www.e-iji.net p-ISSN: 1694-609X
pp. 489-508
Received: 12/03/2019
Revision: 23/08/2019
Accepted: 27/08/2019
OnlineFirst:13/11/2019

Project Based Learning and Academic Procrastination of Students in

Learning Physics

I Wayan Santyasa
Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Indonesia, santyasa@yahoo.com
Ni Ketut Rapi
Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Indonesia, ketutrapi@gmail.com
I Wayan Windu Sara
Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Indonesia, wyn.windu@gmail.com

Learning physics at SMA, does not only involve memorizing facts, but it also
engages the students in solving more problems without delay and attaining a real
learning achievement. This study aimed to analyze the effect of project-based
learning (PjBL) compared with direct instruction (DI) and student procrastination
on student cognitive achievement in learning physics. This quasi-experimental
study used a pretest-posttest non-equivalent control group design, involving 9
classes or 278 students of class X MIPA SMAN 1 Singaraja. The study sample
consisted of 4 classes or 124 students. Data on student achievement and academic
procrastination were obtained from the scores of a learning achievement test and
an academic procrastination questionnaire. The data were analyzed descriptively
and the two-way covariance analysis. The results of the study revealed that, first,
there was a significant difference of academic achievement between students
learned in the PjBL and DI models. Higher academic achievement was achieved by
the students who learned with the PjBL model. Second, there was a significant
difference of academic achievement between students who had high academic
procrastination (HAP) and low academic procrastination (LAP). Higher learning
achievement was achieved by students who had a LAP. Third, there was an
interactive effect between the learning model and academic procrastination on the
student academic achievement. Strong interaction occurred in low procrastination
for both learning models.
Keywords: project-based learning model, direct instruction, student achievement,
academic procrastination, physics learning

Citation: Santyasa, I. W., Rapi, N. K., & Sara, I. W. W. (2020). Project Based Learning and Academic
Procrastination of Students in Learning Physics. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 489-508.
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13132a
490 Project Based Learning and Academic Procrastination of …

INTRODUCTION
Science and technology in the 21st century is experiencing a very rapid development.
This is inseparable from a variety of innovations created as a result of thought and real
research products that have been developed by experts (Prasetyo & Sutopo, 2018). This
should be followed by an increase in the quality of existing human resources. One effort
to make it happen is through high quality education given to the next generation, so that
it can position students as the center of learning, not just being passive recipients of the
material presented by their teachers (Tal & Tsaushu, 2017). Students are enthusiastic in
learning if the lessons they learn are related to the experiences they get in everyday life
(Asri et al., 2017b). This condition can make students active and independent learners
who discover and learn new knowledge from various relevant sources, so that high
learning achievement is achieved. According to Julian (2017), students who are able to
achieve high learning achievement also have a positive attitude towards the lesson. One
factor that influences learning achievement is academic procrastination. The high
academic procrastination students always postpone finishing academic assignments
while the low academic procrastination students can complete academic tasks without
delay (Schraw et al., 2007). According to Roghani et al. (2015), by increasing academic
procrastination students can reduce self-confidence and learning achievement.
Based on the Human Development Report 2016 issued by the United Nations which is
one of the indicators of education, Indonesia only occupies the 113 rd position. Another
fact that shows the low quality of Indonesian education is the low level of mathematics
learning achievement of students from several junior high schools in Madiun Regency,
Indonesia (Asri et al., 2017b). Especially in SMA physics learning in Bali, experiments
have been conducted comparing the effect of Project-based learning (PjBl) and
conventional learning (CL) on creative thinking, the results are on a scale of 100, M
(PjBL) = 39.58, SD = 5.58; M (CL) = 31.05, SD = 5.68, both of them are very low
qualified (Santyasa et al., 2017). Furthermore, experiments on different SMA have also
been conducted to compare the influence between group investigation (GI) and direct
instruction (DI) on critical thinking in physics learning in SMA, the result is M (GI) =
40.92; SD = 5.77; M (DI) = M = 28.05; SD = 6.29, the qualifications are low and very
low respectively (Santyasa et al., 2018). The results of these studies indicate that physics
learning is still vulnerable for SMA students to achieve adequate achievements.
According to Roghani et al. (2015), learning achievement is one of the important
dimensions of a country's education and has a significant relationship with self-
confidence and academic procrastination. Low learning achievement can be caused by
academic procrastination that students have during learning activities (Asri et al.,
2017b). According to Bakhshayesh et al. (2016), high academic procrastination can
cause a decline in student learning performance, especially learning science such as
mathematics. In addition to the decline in learning achievement, high academic
procrastination can also increase students' stress level on a lesson in school (Çikrikci,
2016). In addition to the high level of academic procrastination, low student
achievement is closely related to the incompatibility of the learning model used by the
teacher. The teacher-centered learning model causes student learning achievement in
Kenya to be low especially for the topic the classification of organisms in a biology

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

Santyasa, Rapi & Sara 491

class (Wekesa and Ongunya, 2016) and conventional learning in class reduces student
interest in learning and lowers down scientific literacy (Afriana et al., 2016).
The learning model used by the teacher should be student-centered and can attract
students to learn so that they no longer become passive learners. Learning based on
constructivism views is more of a cognitive problem solving using direct experience,
collaborative interviews, and interpretation through a good self-regulation process
(Santyasa (2017). The constructivism point of view maintains that knowledge is built
through reflection done by students based on the experience they have gained (Jumaat et
al., 2017). One type of constructivist and student-centered learning model is Project
Based Learning (PjBL). Project-based learning (PjBL) provides opportunities for
students to actively build their knowledge and solve a problem through activities in
producing a product (Asri et al., 2017a). Through this learning model, students are
facilitated to develop their scientific characters such as honesty, responsibility, and the
ability to communicate and accept criticisms and suggestions from others (Suparti,
2015). The implementation of project assignments makes students active in finding
references independently and guide them to learn more meaningfully and deeply
because the material learned is associated with experience in real life (Iwamoto et al.,
2016).
Better achievement is attained by students who study with the PjBL model. This is
shown by research from Bilgin et al. (2015), that the achievement test scores of students
who learn with project-based learning model are higher than those who learn with
traditional teaching model. This is in line with the research of Ayaz and Söylemez
(2015), that PjBL has a positive impact in improving science learning achievement
compared to conventional learning, the highest increase in academic achievement
among the three main branches of science occurs in physics. Students' learning
motivation can increase during the PjBL so that it encourages students to develop their
potential in learning to solve a problem (Chiang & Lee, 2016). Increased motivation is
related to students' attitudes in following lessons, research from Julian (2017) shows a
different trend towards different attitudes between students who take part in PjBL and
those who follow conventional learning. Research from Rosales and Sulaiman (2016),
shows that the reasoning and effort of students to study science, especially physics, is
increasing because PjBL bridges between classroom learning material and its
application in everyday life. Asri et al. (2017a), shows that the project-based learning
model (PjBL) is very effective in reducing academic procrastination from students
during learning, because the opportunity to be active in building knowledge is greater
than when taking conventional learning. Meanwhile, academic procrastination is often
the cause of student failure to obtain learning achievements (Deemer et al., 2014; Ojo,
2019). This finding suggests that high academic procrastination as a cause of failure is
greater, whereas low academic procrastination has a greater opportunity to obtain better
learning achievements in physics. The low level of academic procrastination will
ultimately make the students attain a higher learning achievement (Bakhshayesh et al.,
2016).
Based on the background above, the study aims to describe three main points, namely 1)

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

492 Project Based Learning and Academic Procrastination of …

the effect of the PjBL model compared with the DI model on student achievement, 2)
the effect of academic procrastination on student achievement, and 3) the interaction of
the PjBL and DI models with academic procrastination in achieving student
achievement in learning physics in SMA.
CONTEXT AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Constructivist Paradigm
According to the constructivist paradigm, science is temporary related to developments
that are mediated both socially and culturally, so that they tend to be subjective.
Learning according to this view is more a process of self-regulation in resolving
cognitive conflicts that often arise through concrete experience, collaborative
interviews, and interpretation. Learning is an active activity of students to build their
knowledge (Santyasa, 2017). Constructivist philosophers believe that full involvement
of students in learning enables them to personally discover knowledge or 'truth' (Adom
et al., 2016). The most important aspect that focuses on constructivism is the
construction of knowledge as a process. The process involves active action individually
and collaboratively through comparing, knowledge sharing, problem solving, debating,
both between students and with facilitators (Bada, 2015; Dagar & Yadav, 2016). In
general, there are five basic principles underlying the constructivist class, namely: 1)
putting the problems relevant to the needs of students, 2) arranging learning around the
main concepts, 3) respecting the views of students, 4) learning materials are adapted to
the needs of students, 5 ) assessing learning contextually (Santyasa, 2017).
Project-based learning
According to Santyasa (2017) the Project Based Learning Model (PjBL) is centered on
a relatively timed process, focusing on problems, meaningful learning units by
integrating concepts from a number of knowledge components, or disciplines, or fields
of study. There are several advantages of the PjBL in physics learning, which
accommodates students' positive attitudes towards learning, fosters curiosity, stimulates
the enjoyment of learning, guides active and creative involvement in learning,
encourages collaborative independent learning, builds intimate personal and social
relationships between students, and information literacy and technology (Santyasa et al.,
2017). PjBL provides an effective educational experience for vocational high school
teachers. This study explores the influence of the PjBL on learning motivation and
problem-solving skills of vocational students (Chiang & Lee, 2016). The results showed
that PjBL had a positive effect on student learning motivation. This study shows PBL
can facilitate problem solving skills of vocational students. The PjBL model provides
opportunities for students to freely conduct experimental activities, review literature in
the library, browse the internet, and collaborate with teachers. Therefore, learning
resources become more open and varied, including in exploring the environment. As a
result, students will learn with full of sincerity because they are motivated by the desire
to answer questions that have been raised so that learning becomes more effective and
meaningful (Muderawan et al. In Pradita et al., 2015). Behind the superiority of the
PjBL, previous research has also revealed that students have difficulty implementing

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

Santyasa, Rapi & Sara 493

PjBL in class. The PjBL implementation reveals that more than 75% of students cannot
implement it optimally, because of the various challenges they face, namely the
difficulty of choosing significant content, time management, monitoring and evaluation,
and lack of supporting facilities (Aldabbus, 2018). However, the implementation of
PjBL model must continue to be carried out. The implementation of this model follows
five main steps, namely: 1) determining the theme of the project, 2) determining the
context of learning, 3) planning activities, 4) processing activities, 5) implementing
activities to complete the project (Santyasa, 2017).
Learning achievement
Learning achievement is the measurement result of students' learning activities and
efforts delivered in the form of symbols, letters and sentences that describe their
learning achievement (Heck in Yulianingsih & Sobandi, 2017). The factors that
influence learning achievement (Ahmadi & Supriyono in Fajri et al., 2016) are as
follows: 1) physical factors (physiology), 2) psychological factors, 3) physical and
psychological maturity factors, and 4) spiritual and security factors in the environment.
Educational taxonomy is divided into two dimensional structures (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2010), namely the dimension of knowledge and the dimension of cognitive
processes. The dimension of knowledge is the dimension created from one of the main
aspects in the formulation of learning objectives, namely the aspect of nouns, which
states the type of knowledge referred to in that goal. The dimensions of knowledge in
Anderson and Krathwohl's taxonomy consists of four categories described in Table 1.
Table 1
Knowledge Dimension Structure According to Anderson and Krathwohl
No Knowledge dimension Sub Dimension
1 Factual Knowledge: basic elements that 1. Knowledge of terminology
students must know to learn a discipline or to 2. Knowledge of specific element details
solve problems in the discipline
2 Conceptual Knowledge: Relationships 1. Knowledge of classification and category
between elements in a large structure that 2. Knowledge of principle and generalization
enable elements to function together. 3. Knowledge of theory, model, and structure
3 Procedural knowledge: How to do things, 1. Knowledge of skill in an area and algorithm
practice research methods, and criteria for 2. Knowledge of techniques and methods in an
using skills, algorithms, techniques, and area
methods. 3. Knowledge of criteria to determine in
utilizing a procedure precisely
4 Cognitive knowledge: knowledge of 1. Knowledge of strategic
cognition in general and awareness and 2. Knowledge of cognitive tasks
knowledge of self-cognition. 3. Self-knowledge
Source: Anderson & Krathwohl (2010)
The dimensions of cognitive processes in Anderson and Krathwohl's taxonomy consist
of six categories which state different levels of process complexity. Each category is
further divided into sub-categories that state more specific cognitive processes. The
dimensions of this cognitive process are operational words that can be used as a
reference in formulating learning objectives. Each category and sub-category in the
dimensions of the cognitive process is presented in Table 2.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

494 Project Based Learning and Academic Procrastination of …

Table 2
Dimension of Cognitive Process in the Anderson and Krathwohl’s Taxonomy
No Dimension and Sub Dimension of cognitive process
1 Remembering (recognizing, recalling)
2 Understanding (interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, concluding,
comparing, explaining)
3 Applying (executing, implementing)
4 Analyzing (differentiating, organizing, attributing)
5 Evaluating (checking, criticizing)
6 Creating (formulating, planning, producing)
Source: Anderson & Krathwohl (2010)
Academic Procrastination
Academic procrastination is a type of delay that is carried out on formal types of tasks
related to the academic field (Ferrari et al., 1995). Solomon and Rothblum (in Ferrari et
al., 1995) mention six academic areas to see the types of tasks that are often
procrastinated by students, namely: 1) writing assignments, 2) learning assignments, 3)
reading assignments include, 4) doing administrative tasks, 5) attending meetings, 6)
delays in overall academic performance. Milgram stated that procrastination consists of
four dimensions (in Ferrari et al., 1995), namely: 1) a series of procrastination
behaviors, 2) producing sub-standard behavior, 3) involving a number of perceived
tasks that are important for procrastinators to do, 4) producing emotional states which is
not fun. In summary, the dimensions and indicators of academic procrastination are
shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Dimension and Indicator of the Academic Procrastination
No Dimension Indicator
1 A series of delaying behaviors Delay in academic assignments
Lags in working on tasks
Produce substandard behavior
2 Time gap between plan and actual performance
3 Involves a number of tasks that are
Do other activities that are more fun
perceived as important for procrastinators
4 Produce an unpleasant emotional state Emotional anxiety
Source: Sari in Wulandari )2016).
METHOD
Model of Research
This research belonged to the type of quasi-experiment with the pretest-posttest
nonequivalent control group design. Quasi-type experiments are used, because the
subject is human, so perfect control cannot be done. The use of the pretest-posttest
design on the experimental type aims to influence the difference in initial conditions
(pretest scores) on the dependent variable (posttest scores) between groups can be
eliminated by controlling it statistically. The control group was the group of subjects
who used the DI model who wanted to be replaced with the PjBL model used by the
experimental group when it was proven that the PJBL was superior empirically. The
variables studied were learning achievement as the dependent variable, the learning

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

Santyasa, Rapi & Sara 495

model as the dependent variable consisting of two levels, namely the PjBL model for the
experimental group and the DI model for the control group. In this study also studied
academic procrastination as a moderator variable.
Population and Sample
The population in this study was all students of class X MIPA in SMAN 1 Singaraja
which consisted of 9 classes or 278 students aged between 15 to 16 years. SMAN 1
Singaraja is one of the top schools in the city of Singaraja in Bali. The sample consisted
of 4 classes (124 students, or 45% of the population, 47 men and 77 women) chosen by
random assignment technique from 9 classes of the population. The determination of
experimental and control classes was made randomly from 4 classes of sample and have
been selected of class X MIPA 6 (30 students) and X MIPA 7 (30 students) as an
experimental group and class X MIPA 5 (32 students) and X MIPA 8 (32 students) as a
control group. The study was conducted from February to April 2018. The topics were
work, energy, impulse, momentum, and collision.
Treatment
During the study the students of class X MIPA 6 and X MIPA 7 took the project-based
learning model (PjBL) treatment, while students in class X MIPA 5 and X MIPA 8
received the direct instruction model treatment. The design of the treatment of the two
groups is presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Treatments Design of the Learning Model
Activities Activities description of PjBL Activities description of DI
Introduction The teacher conveys apperception about the topic The teacher conveys the learning objectives.
beforehand and provides motivation to students. The teacher motivates the students by conveying the
The teacher conveys the basic competencies and learning important of the topic.
objectives of the day.
Core The teacher shares student worksheet about the project- The teacher explains topic generally and shares
activities based learning student worksheet.
The teacher guides students to set the theme of the project Students record teacher explanations.
Students explore project ideas based on problems Students do the worksheet
presented in student worksheet
Students set learning context The teacher guides students in solve the tasks
Students in small groups divide tasks to answer problems Students do the tasks
in the worksheet
Students plan actual activities The teacher checks and gives comments about
Students browse learning resources that support the project student work
Students collect tools and materials that support the project
The teacher gives conclusions about the results of
in worksheet student work
Students record the conclusions givens by the teacher
Students follow the activity processes The teacher guides students to practice solving
Students in small groups sketch the project to be carried problem
out related to the topic Students practice from one problem to another
Student apply activities Students do advanced training in solving problems
Students in small groups look for problem solving based on Student try to solve more complex problems
internet sources, books, and observations
Each group write a report and presented it in class
Closing Students check their understanding by doing the test given The teacher gives quizzes to students regarding the
activities by the teacher topic of the day
Students confirm their understanding when the teacher The teacher gives home assignments and the next
explains important material topic
The teacher rewards students’ success The teacher and students close the lesson by saying
Students confirm to the teacher about the next lesson the closing greeting

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

496 Project Based Learning and Academic Procrastination of …

Data Collection and Analysis

In this study 35 items of an academic procrastination questionnaire were developed
using a 4-point scale. Before being used, the questionnaire was tested in order to analyze
the internal consistency of the items using product moment correlation and its reliability
was determined by using Cronbach's alpha (Mehrens & Lehmann, 1984). Thirty items
were obtained which were feasible to be used in the study with the distribution of grain-
total correlation coefficients as presented in Table 5. The reliability of the 31 items of
the procrastination questionnaire was 0.919, falling into the very high category.
Table 5
Coefficient Value of Item-Total Correlation (rxy) of Academic Procrastination
Questionnaire
Item rxy  0.3 Item rxy  0.3 Item rxy  0.3 Item rxy  0.3
No. No. No. No.
1 0.6 9 0.5 17 0,5 25 0.6
2 0.5 10 0.6 18 0.4 26 0.7
3 0.3 11 0.5 19 0,6 27 0.6
4 0.5 12 0.5 20 0.6 28 0.4
5 0.6 13 0.7 21 0.4 29 0.6
6 0.4 14 0.6 22 0.7 30 0.5
7 0.5 15 0.5 23 0.6 31 0.5
8 0.4 16 0.5 24 0.6
The learning achievement test consisted of 26 items in the form of open-ended questions
using rubrics with a measurement scale of 0-5 for each item. Rubric for physics learning
achievement tests is presented in Table 6.
Table 6
Rubric of Physics Learning Achievement Test
Score Criteria
5 Provides complete and right solutions
4 Provides right solution, a little flawed, but satisfying
3 Provides right solution, many flawed, but almost satisfying
2 Provides solution that have elements of truth, but are not adequate
1 Tries to provide solution, but totally wrong
0 Does not provide a solution at all
Adopted from Santyasa (2014)
Before the test was used, it was tested first. After testing and considering the distribution
of the items, discrimination index, level of difficulty, and internal consistency of the
item (the distribution is presented in Table 7), 20 items were selected as a research
instrument. The reliability of 20 test items was 0.921 falling into the very high category.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

Santyasa, Rapi & Sara 497

Table 7
Summary of the Results of the Test of Learning Achievement Tests
No rxy  0.3 IKB IDB No rxy  0.3 IKB IDB
item ( 0.3-0.7 ) (  0.2 ) item ( 0.3-0.7 ) (  0.2 )
1 0.5 0.4 0.5 11 0.7 0.4 0.7
2 0.6 0.4 0.3 12 0.4 0.7 0.4
3 0.3 0.6 0.2 13 0.7 0.7 0.4
4 0.8 0.6 0.7 14 0.3 0.7 0.4
5 0.6 0.4 0.5 15 0.7 0.6 0.6
6 0.8 0.4 0.9 16 0.7 0.3 0.3
7 0.8 0.5 0.7 17 0.8 0.5 0.9
8 0.6 0.6 0.5 18 0.7 0.5 0.6
9 0.7 0.6 0.6 19 0.7 0.4 0.7
10 0.6 0.3 0.4 20 0.8 0.5 0.9
In this study the data analysis techniques used were the descriptive statistical analysis
and two-way covariance analysis (ANCOVA). This technique is to eliminate outside
influences other than the influence of independent variables, so that the possibility of
statistical F errors can be minimized (Hair et al., 1995). The covariance analysis was
based on 3 assumption tests, namely 1) test of data distribution normality using
Kolmogorov test and Shapiro-Wilk statistics; 2) homogeneity test of variance between
groups using Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variance; and 3) linearity test between
covariates and dependent variables using test of linearity.
FINDINGS
Descriptive Analysis Results
Data on the average value and standard deviation of the initial learning achievement of
the pre-test (covariate) results and student achievement from the post-test results
(dependent variable) in the 4 groups of analysis are presented in Table 8.
Table 8
Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) Students’ Achievement in Physics in the both
PjBL and DI Each for the Low Academic Procrastination (LAP) and High Academic
Procrastination (HAP)
PjBL DI
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
LAP M11 = 12.7; M11 = 52.9 M21 = 12.2; M21 = 32.0
SD = 4.5 SD = 15.5 SD = 4.7 SD = 12.2
HAP M12 = 11.8; M12 = 40.6 M22 = 8.7; M22 = 26.8
SD = 3.6 SD = 10.3 SD = 4.1 SD = 10.1

Table 8 shows before and after treatment students' physics learning achievements in the
PjBL-PAR group and the PjBL-PAT group increased from very low qualifications to
less, while the DI-PAR and DI-PAT groups remained in very poor qualifications. The
bar diagram of the 4 learning achievement groups is presented in Figure 1.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

498 Project Based Learning and Academic Procrastination of …

Figure 1
Students’ Achievement Before and After Treatment on the Four Groups
Data Distribution Normality Test Result
The result of the analysis of the normality of the data distribution of the pre-test and
post-test results in the 4 analysis groups (PjBL-PAR, PJBL-PAT, DI-PAR, DI-PAT)
showed that the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk Test statistical values ranged
from 0.1 to 0.9 with level of significance ranging from 0.1 to 0.6. Each level of
significance was smaller than 0.05, so that all data distributions were normally
distributed (Hair et al., 1995).
Variance Homogeneity Test Result
The result of the variance homogeneity test between the PjBL model and the DI model,
both the variants of the pre-test and the post-test results showed the statistical values of
F ranged from 0.1 to 0.8. Each of the levels of significance was smaller than 0.05. In
addition, the Levene test also showed a statistical value of F = 1.311 with a level of
significance of 0.276> 0.05. So, the learning achievement data before and after the
treatment between the PjBL and DI showed the same variance.
Linearity test result
The result of the analysis showed that linearity statistics had the value of F = 28.9 with
the level of significance of 0.01 <0.05 and deviation from linearity statistics showed the
value of F = 1.0 with the level of significance of 0.5> 0.05, so that the covariate was
linear to the dependent variable.
Covariance Analysis Result
After the data were tested for normality, homogeneity, and linearity, the hypothesis was
tested using two-way covariance analysis. The result of the covariance analysis test is
presented in Table 9.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

Santyasa, Rapi & Sara 499

Table 9
Summary of Two-way Analysis of Covariance with Students’ Achievement before
Treatment as a Covariate
Source Type III Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Covariate 2566.2 1 2566.2 21.0 0.000
Model 4923.9 1 4923.9 40.2 0.000
Procrastination 780.2 1 780.2 6.4 0.013
Model*Procrastination 549.6 1 549.6 4.5 0.037
Error 10154.3 83 122.3
Based on the summary of the results of the two-way analysis of covariance in Table 9,
the following can be reported.
First, the source of covariate effect (initial learning achievement) on learning
achievement variables showed a statistical value of F = 21.0 with a significance value of
0.001 smaller than 0.05. This means that the initial learning achievement covariates had
a significant effect on learning achievement. Based on Figure 1, it appears that LAP
students were not far apart, but the significant differences occurred in HAP students,
where the PjBL group showed a higher initial learning achievement compared to the DI
group. Therefore, relevant covariance analysis was used in this study.
Second, the source of the effect of the model showed the statistical value F (MODEL) =
40.2 with the level of significance of 0.001 which was smaller than 0.05. It could be
decided H0 was rejected and HA was accepted. That is, there was a difference in
learning achievement between students who learned with the PjBL model and those who
learned with the DI model. Student learning achievement in PjBL group (MPjBL =
52.9; SD = 15.5) was higher than that of students in DI group (MDI = 32.0; SD = 12.2).
Third, the source of the effect of procrastination on learning achievement showed the
value of statistical F (procrastination) = 6.4 with the level of significance of 0.013 which
was smaller than 0.05. It is safe to say that Ho was rejected and Ha was accepted. In
other words, there was a difference in physics learning achievement between the
students with a low academic procrastination and those with a high academic
procrastination. Physics learning achievement of the students with a low academic
procrastination (LAP) (MLAP = 52.9; SD = 15.5) was higher than that of those with a
high academic procrastination (HAP) (MHAP = 40.6; SD = 10.3).
Fourth, the source of the interactive effect between the model and procrastination
(Model * procrastination) showed the statistical value F (model * procrastination) = 4.5
with the level of significance of 0.037 smaller than 0.05. It is safe to say that that H0
was rejected and Ha was accepted. In other words, there was an interactive effect
between the learning model and academic procrastination on student learning
achievement. The profile of interactions between learning models and academic
procrastination is shown in Figure 2.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

500 Project Based Learning and Academic Procrastination of …

Figure 2
Interaction Profile between Learning Model and Academic Procrastination
Figure 2 shows that both learning models tended to interact strongly with LAP and
weakly with HAP in learning achievement. The highest learning achievement occurred
in the interaction between PjBL and LAP.
DISCUSSION
The Effect of Project-Based Learning (Pjbl) and Direct Instruction (DI) on The
Students’ Achievement
This research shows that PjBL model tends to be better than DI in achieving physics
learning achievements. This result is consistent with the research conducted by Erdogan
et al (2016) which shows that students who learn to use the PjBL model tend to be
superior compared to those who study with DI in learning achievement. The findings of
Iwamoto et al (2016) and Ayaz and Söylemez (2016) also show the same thing. They
stated that the PjBL model was superior to the DI model in achieving physics learning.
PjBL can improve student learning achievement in learning physics, emotional
intelligence, and psychomotor skills, so they can replace traditional learning (Baran et
al., 2018). Students give a positive response to the application of PjBL, so that they can
increase their understanding of concepts in learning science (Yamin et al., 2017). PjBL
does not only affect learning achievement but it also improves students 'attitudes
towards the lesson in a better direction so that students' interest in the lesson can
increase (Julian, 2017).
Basically, the PjBL model is a constructive learning model that positions students
themselves as builders of knowledge they possess based on the knowledge they already
have. Thus, students become active learners. Students will have high academic
involvement as long as they learn with the PjBL model because they are facilitated with
projects that are interesting, challenging, related to the phenomena of their daily lives
and relevant to the needs in the community (Craft & Capraro (2017). The increase in
student involvement can be seen from enthusiasm during learning, students become
more active in gathering information related to the project and critical of the new things
or knowledge that they obtain. The high involvement of students in PjBL provides

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

Santyasa, Rapi & Sara 501

opportunities for them to make their learning more meaningful, relevant, and useful in
their lives.
During the PjBL process students who are faced with relevant projects tend to put more
effort at acquiring knowledge related to the project and are more able to use their logic
of thinking in solving the problems obtained and linking the principles or concepts
acquired in real life (Rosales & Sulaiman, 2016 ) Through work activities and
presentation of reports related to projects that have been done, students become more
active in participating in group learning, working together based on the assigned
division of tasks, and communicating the results of group work and knowledge they
have (Suparti, 2015). Project work related to real life with groups makes students enjoy
learning activities more and increases motivation in participating in learning because
students perceive their knowledge to be more meaningful and can be implemented to
solve the physical problems encountered in everyday life (Chiang & Lee, 2016).
Students' attitudes and interests in physics during project-based learning activities and
good social and communication skills in groups lead to a better learning achievement
than those who learned with the direct instruction model. This is consistent with research
conducted by Khaliq et al., (2015) which shows that the conventional teaching model is
not effective for teaching science. An effective physics learning uses the constructivist
theory such as in the project-based learning model (Aina, 2017; Dykstra, 1996; Rose,
2018).
The ineffectiveness of the DI model is due to its monotonous nature and students are in
the capacity as passive learners, meaning students gain knowledge from the material
presented by the teacher during classroom learning (Baran et al., 2018; Samsudin et al.,
2017). Students just listen to the explanation about the topic from the teacher and they
can only recognize the concept without understanding it properly. As the result,
classroom learning is less attractive and students just memorize the material and
formulas given by the teacher, an activity that needs to be done in preparing themselves
for an exam. DI makes students become individuals who do not have a developing
vision and are unable to build their own knowledge and logic to connect a concept with
other concepts because they are accustomed to just accepting the material provided by
the teacher (Baran et al., 2018). The impact of this makes the students less optimal in the
attaining the learning achievement.
During learning when working on student worksheets which must be completed in
groups, students who have low academic abilities tend to only see and rely on their
group friends who are considered to have moderate to high academic abilities to
complete the student worksheets (Baran et al., 2018). As a result, when a friend who is
considered smart is not able to solve the problem given, members of the group do not
show an effort to work together to solve the problem and tend to ask the teacher directly.
This shows that DI does not train students' persistence in learning and tends to spoil
students to gain knowledge (Samsudin et al., 2017). The quality of knowledge possessed
by students is relatively lacking and is only focused on answering textual test questions.
The ability to solve contextual problems from students will be lacking because of
inadequate understanding of concepts and too dependent on teachers.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

502 Project Based Learning and Academic Procrastination of …

In general, this study shows that the learning achievement of the group of students who
follow the PjBL model is better than the group of students who follow the DI model.
However, individually the value of the majority of students participating in PjBL has not
been able to achieve the minimum completeness criteria. This is caused by several
factors as follows.
First, the adaptation of students who are slow in following the PjBL model because they
are accustomed to following the DI model (Baran et al., 2018). During PjBL students
who usually get material directly from the teacher are now faced with a worksheet based
on the project and follow the steps in the PjBL model with the group to obtain
knowledge related to the material under discussion. Students experience difficulties in
following these steps or in dividing assignments between group members (Baran et al.,
2018). In addition to the students’ insufficient knowledge and low skill in writing a good
report is also a factor that slows down the implementation of the PjBL model. During
the learning process, most students only focus on concepts that are explicitly related to
project work so that other supporting concepts are not considered.
Second, the prior knowledge and reasoning of each student is different so that there is a
gap during the learning process between the students who have a good academic ability
and those who lack academic (Samsudin et al., 2017). Studying in the same time frame
does not make the students with an adequate academic ability experience difficulty in
obtaining and understanding the concepts being studied compared to those who lack
academic abilities or lack initial knowledge. Basically, each student has the potential to
learn the same concept well, but the time it takes to learn is different from an individual
to another because of the differences in their cognitive structures. If the learning time is
tailored to the students' abilities, they will be able to achieve an optimal learning
achievement. But in this study, this has not been fully achieved because of the limited
time for learning and teaching activities.
Third, most students depend on group members so that in a test those who have a high
dependence will get lower grades because they experience a crisis since they do not get
the time to collaborate with their peers (Kristanti et al., 2016). The incompleteness of
students’ acquisition of knowledge and skill is caused by misconceptions in some parts
of the material that are examined in tests or daily tests, the lack of interest in reading is
one of the causes (Rachmawati, et al. 2017). When doing the project with the group, the
students focus more on the material related to the project being worked on, without
regard to other material because they assume that the latter does not contribute to the
completion of the assignment.
The Effect of Academic Procrastination on The Students’ Achievement
This study found that students with a HAP tend to attain a higher physics learning
achievement compared to those with a LAP. This influence occurs because students'
academic procrastination characterizes motivational, cognitive, self-efficacy, self-
regulated learning, metacognitive beliefs, and achievement goal orientation factors of
students are weak, so students do not immediately feel challenged to work on their
learning tasks (Asri et al., 2017a; Asri et al., 2017b; Batool et al., 2017; Kandemir,

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

Santyasa, Rapi & Sara 503

2014; Ojo, 2019). This finding confirms Karatas' (2015) study that AP is one of the
causes of not optimal performance achieved by a person during education. The
relationship between AP and learning achievement is very close but is detrimental to the
students themselves because the higher one's academic procrastination, the tendency that
occurs is a decrease in learning achievement. Çikrikci (2016) also shows that the
students’ cognitive ability and learning achievement decrease because of HAP. The low
learning achievement due to AP can also encourage an emergency and increase student
pressure during learning activities. The pressure experienced by students with an AP
will change their attitude and motivation towards negative things related to school,
especially the lessons that make these students get low grades (Karmen et al, 2015).
Academic procrastination is also related to the low ability of students to control
themselves in participating in learning so that optimal learning achievement is not
achieved (Saerle et al., 2016). Low self-control causes delays or suspension of
completion of academic tasks performed by students which ultimately leads to a
decrease in student performance in learning so that learning achievement is less optimal
(Bakhshayesh et al., 2016). Academic procrastination is one of the factors that influence
the learning achievement achieved by students (Asri et al., 2017). The factors causing
the high AP are 1) the students' assumption that the assignments given by the teacher are
not important and not useful for their lives; 2) the task given by the teacher is considered
too much and the time given is too short so that they tend to overloaded; 3) the students
consider the task given by the teacher very difficult; 4) the students do not have an
intention to complete the task given perfectly; 5) the students do not even have the
ability to organize their learning activities, 6) the students experience fatigue during
other activities outside of formal learning activities; 7) no support is given by the
environment around students who are less conducive; and 8) the teachers are less
disciplined and strict during the teaching and learning activities.
Thus, students who have a LAP less frequently or never delay completing tasks can
attain an optimal learning achievement. Conversely, students who have a HAP have a
low self-regulation in learning that the achievement they attain tend to be lower than that
attained by students with a HAP (Asri et al, 2017). Based on this, procrastination can be
considered as a powerful predictor to predict the learning achievement.
The Interaction Effect Between Learning Model and Academic Procrastination on
The Students’ Achievement
The research findings showed that there was an effect of interaction between learning
models and AP. This result lends support to the research by Sæle et al., (2016) which
shows that there is an interaction between the learning model and academic
procrastination in learning achievement in the year university students.
Students who have LAP tend to get a higher physics learning achievement score than
those with a HAP both in the PjBL model and in the DI model. But the PjBL model
shows a higher main effect compared to DI. The habit of not delaying, completing
assignments on time, and good learning management are the capital for students with a
LAP. In contrast to students with a HAP, they tend to wait for help from friends from

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

504 Project Based Learning and Academic Procrastination of …

other groups and even teachers in working on student worksheet should be completed in
groups (Bakhshayesh et al., 2016; Saerle et al., 2016). The increasing tendency of
student AP is certainly accompanied by a decline in their learning achievement. An
increased level of student AP is one of the factors causing passive involvement in
learning. Inactive students are conditioned in the DI model, while active learners tend to
have a LAP, they are accommodated in the PjBL model Çikrikci (2016).
CONCLUSION
There were significant differences in physics learning achievement between the students
who learned with the PjBL model and those who learned with the DI model in class X
SMAN 1 Singaraja. The students who learned with the PjBL model obtained a higher
achievement than those who learned with the DI model. This finding is very useful in
improving the quality of the learning process and increasing student learning
achievement through the implementation of PjBL. Therefore, it is recommended that
physics teachers understand PjBL deeply and apply it in learning. The Potential of
Long-Distance Learning which can challenge and enhance the activeness of students in
learning physics in the achievement of better learning products requires critical study in
further research.
There were significant differences in physics learning achievement between the students
who had a LAP and students who had a HAP. The learning achievement of the students
who had a LAP was better than those who had a HAP. This finding is very useful in
identifying trends in student academic procrastination. It is recommended that teachers
involve more students who have LAP inclinations as peer tutoring friends who have
HAP inclinations, thereby minimizing opportunities to postpone work for students who
have HAP inclinations. The potential of peer tutoring as a supplement to PjBL requires
critical study in further research.
There was an interactive effect between the learning model and AP. Both learning
models tended to interact strongly with LAP. It can be concluded that the application of
PjBL and AP model had a positive and significant effect on the students’ achievement in
learning physics of class X SMAN 1 Singaraja. This study has limitations related to the
shortness of time and does not include collaboration assessment in treatment. In the
design of learning, teachers should include collaborative assessments and provide
enough time as an effort to encourage students to not have the opportunity to postpone
doing assignments through PjBL. The potential of collaborative assessment as a
supplement to PjBL in achieving physics learning achievement needs critical study in
subsequent research.
REFERENCES
Adom, D., Yeboah, A., Ankrah, A. K. (2016). Constructivism philosophical paradigm:
Implication for research, teaching and learning. Global Journal of Arts Humanities and
Social Sciences, 4(10), 1-9.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

Santyasa, Rapi & Sara 505

Afriana, J., Permanasari, A., & Fitriani, A. (2016). Project based learning integrated to
stem ti enhance elementary school’s students scientific literacy. Journal Pendidikan IPA
Indonesia, 5(2), 261-267.
Aina, J. K. (2017). Developing a constructivist model for effective physics learning.
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 1(4), 59-67.
Aldabbus, S. (2018). Project-based learning: Implementation & challenges.
International Journal of Education, Learning and Development, 6(3), 71-79.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. V. (2010). Kerangka pembelajaran untuk
pembelajaran, pengajaran, dan assesmen. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Asri, D. N., Setyosari, P., Hitipeuw, I., & Chusniyah, T. (2017a). The influence of
project-based learning strategy and self-regulated learning on academic procrastination
of junior high school students’ mathematics learning. American Journal of Educational
Research, 5(1), 88-96.
Asri, D. N., Setyosari, P., Hitipeuw, I., & Chusniyah, T. (2017b). The academic
procrastination in junior high school students’ mathematics learning: A qualitative
study. International Education Studies, 10(9), 70-77.
Ayaz, M. F., & Söylemez, M. (2015). The effect of the project-based learning approach
on the academik achievements of the students in sciense classes in Turkey: A meta-
analysis study. Education and Science, 40(178), 255-283.
Bada, S. O. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and
learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70.
Bakhshayesh, A., Radmanesh, H., & Bafrooee, K. B. (2016). Investigating relation
between academic procrastination and math performance of students in first year of high
school. Journal of Educational and Management Studies, 6(3), 62-67.
Baran, M., Maskan, A., & Yaşar, S. (2018). Learning physics through project-based
learning game techniques. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 221-234.
Batool, S. S., Khursheed, S., & Jahangir, H. (2017). Academic procrastination as a
product of low self-esteem: A mediational role of academic self-efficacy. Pakistan
Journal of Psychological Research, 32(1), 195-211.
Bilgin, I., Karakuyu, Y., & Ay, Y. (2015). The effect of project based learning on
undergraduate students’ achievement and self-efficacy beliefs toward science teaching.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(3), 469-477.
Chiang, C. L., & Lee, H. (2016). The effect of project-based learning on learning
motivation and problem-solving ability of vocational high school students. International
Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(9), 709-712.
Çikrikci, Ö. (2016). Academic procrastination: The role of metacognitive awareness and
educational stress. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 19(1), 39-52.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

506 Project Based Learning and Academic Procrastination of …

Craft, A. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2017). Science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics project-based learning: Merging rigor and relevance to increase student
engagement. Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts, and Science, 3(6),
140-158.
Dagar, V., & Yadav, A. (2016). Constructivism: A Paradigm for teaching and learning.
Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 7(4), 1-4.
Deemer, E. D., Smith, J. L., Carroll, A. N., & Carpenter, J. P. (2014). Academic
procrastination in STEM: Interactive effects of stereotype threat and achievement goals.
The Career Development Quarterly, 62, 143-155.
Dykstra, D. I. (1996). Teaching introductory physics to college students, In C. T. Fosnot
(Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp.182-204), New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Erdogan, N., Navruz, B., Younes, R., & Capraro, R. M. (2016). Viewing how stem
project based learning influences students’ science achievement through the
implementation lens: A latent growth modeling. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science & Technology Education, 12(8), 2139-2154.
Fajri, N., Yoesoef, A., & Nur, M. (2016). Pengaruh model pembelajaran kooperatif tipe
talking stick dengan strategi joyful learning terhadap prestasi belajar siswa pada mata
pelajaran IPS kelas VII MTsN Meuraxa Banda Aceh. Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa
Pendidikan Sejarah, 1(1), 98-109.
Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Procrastination and task
avoidance theory, research, and treatment. New York, NY: Springer.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data
analysis with readings, Fourth edition, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Iwamoto, D. H., Hargis, & Vuong, K. (2016). The effect of project-based learning on
student performsnce: An action research study. International Journal for the
Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 24-42.
Julian, P. K. (2017). The effects of a project-based course on students’ attitudes toward
mathematics and students’ achievement at a two-year college. The Mathematics
Enthusiast, 14(1), 509-516
Jumaat, N. F., Tasir, Z., Halim, N. D. A., & Ashari, Z. M. (2017). Project-based
learning from constructivism point of view. American Scientific Publishers, 23(8), 1-4.
Kandemir, M. (2014). Reasons of academic procrastination: Self-regulation, academic
self-efficacy, life satisfaction and demographics variables. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 152, 188-193.
Karatas, H. (2015). Correlation among academic procrastination, personal traits, and
academic achievement. Anthropologist, 20(1), 243-255.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

Santyasa, Rapi & Sara 507

Karmen, D., Kinga, S., Edit, M., Susana, F., Kinga, K. J., & Reka, J. (2015).
Association between academic performance, academic attitudes, and procrastination in a
sample of undergraduate students attending different educational forms. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Science, 187, 25-49.
Khaliq, S., Alam, M. T., & Mushtaq, M. (2015). An experimental study to investigate
the effectiveness of project-based learning (PBL) for teaching science at elementary
level. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development, 4(1), 43-55.
Kristanti, Y. D., Subiki, & Handayani, R. D. (2016). Model Pembelajaran berbasis
proyek (project based learning model) pada pembelajaran fisika di SMA. Jurnal
Pembelajaran Fisika, 5(2), 122-128.
Mehrens, W. A., & Lehmann, I. J. (1984). Measurement and evaluation in education
and psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ojo, A. A. (2019). The impact of procrastination on students academic performance in
secondary schools. International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Research,
5(1), 17-22.
Pradita, Y., Mulyani, B., & Redjeki, T. (2015). Penerapan model pembelajaran project
based learning untuk meningkatkan prestasi belajar dan kreativitas siswa pada materi
pokok sistem koloid kelas XI IPA semester genap Madrasah Aliyah Negeri Klaten tahun
pelajaran 2013/2014. Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia, 4(1), 89-96.
Prasetyo, H., & Sutopo, W. (2018). Industri 4.0: Telaah klasifikasi aspek dan arah
perkembangan riset. Jurnal Teknik Industri 13(1), 17-26.
Rachmawati, S., Susanto, H., & Fianti. (2017). Penggunaan metode cri (certain of
response index) berbantuan soal pisa (programme of international student assessment)
untuk mengidentifikasi miskonsepsi ipa materi tata surya. Unnes Physics Education
Journal, 6(3), 26-31.
Roghani, L., Aghahoseini, T., & Yazdani, F. (2015). The relationship between the
academic procrastination and the academic self-efficacy for academic achievements in
female high school students in Isfahan in the 2013-2014 academic year. Journal of
Management Sciences, 1(12), 385-390.
Rose, A. (2018). Utilization of constructivist instructional method in teaching physics in
secondary schools: Interaction effects of method and location. World Journal of
Innovative Research (WJIR), 5(2), 11-15.
Rosales, J. J., & Sulaiman, F. (2016). Students’ sense making and effort toward project-
based learning in learning physics. International Journal of Education and Research,
4(9), 29-40.
Sæle, R. G., Dahl, T. I., Sørlie, T., & Friborg, O. (2016). Relationships between
learning approach, procrastination and academic achievement amongst first-year
university students. Higher Education, 74(5), 757-774.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1

508 Project Based Learning and Academic Procrastination of …

Samsudin, M. A., Zain, A. N. M., Jamali, S. M., & Ebrahim, N. A. (2017). Physics
achievement in stem project based learning (PjBL): A gender study. Asia Pacific
Journal of Educators and Education, 32, 21-28.
Santyasa, I. W. (2007). Model-model pembelajaran inovatif. A paper presented in A
Training on Classroom Action Research for Junior high school and senior high school
teachers, Nusa Penida.
Santyasa, I. W. (2014). Asesmen dan evaluasi pembelajaran fisika. Yogyakarta: Graha
Ilmu.
Santyasa, I. W. (2017). Pembelajaran inovatif. Singaraja: Undiksha Press.
Santyasa, I. W., Suastra, I. W. & Astawan, I. G. (2017). Project-based learning in
achieving creative thinking and character for senior high school student in learning
physics. Proceedings of the 2th Asian Education Symposium, 415-423.
Santyasa, I. W., Sukra Warpala, I. W., & Sudarma, I. K. (2018). The power of group
investigation model on student critical thinking, attitude, and character in learning
physics. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 274, 101-
106.
Suparti. (2015). Project-based learning guided lesson study improve the achievement of
learning outcomes on seminar accounting education course at department of accounting.
IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(3), 5-11.
Tal, T., & Tsaushu, M. (2017). Student-centered introductory biology course: Evidence
for deep learning. Journal of Biology Education, 1-15.
United Nations Development Program. (2016). Human development repost 2016:
Human development for everyone. Retrieved from http:// www.hdr.undp.org.
Wulandari, M. R. A. (2016). Pengaruh kecerdasan emosional, perilaku belajar dan
prokrastinasi akademik terhadap prestasi belajar mahasiswa. (Skripsi Online). Retrieved
from http:// www.repository.usd.ac.id.
Yamin, Y., Permanasari, A., Redjeki, S., & Sopandi, W. (2017). Application of model
project based learning on integrated science in water pollution. Journal of Physics:
Conf. Series, 895, 012153. doi :10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012153.
Yulianingsih, L. T., & Sobandi, A. (2017). Kinerja guru sebagai faktor determinan
prestasi belajar siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Manajemen Perkantoran, 1(1), 50-57.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2020 ● Vol.13, No.1